So, hate away at the people that are not your race, religion or political persuasion.
Of course, it's still unlawful to directly instigate riots or crimes -- keep that in mind.
However, the US Supreme Court has reaffirmed your right to make toxic posts -- trolls rejoice.
Actually, this case was about the band "The Slants" being denied a trademark by the US Patent Office. Disparagement of a person (Disparagement is the act of speaking about someone in a negative or belittling way). These Asian guys wanted that trademark -- same thing would apply to a band that wanted to name themselves the queers, cunts, kikes, spics or n-----rs. This is a great day for America we can legally insult ourselves or others with a hate trademark.
from the decision;
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1293_1o13.pdf
Of course, it's still unlawful to directly instigate riots or crimes -- keep that in mind.
However, the US Supreme Court has reaffirmed your right to make toxic posts -- trolls rejoice.
Actually, this case was about the band "The Slants" being denied a trademark by the US Patent Office. Disparagement of a person (Disparagement is the act of speaking about someone in a negative or belittling way). These Asian guys wanted that trademark -- same thing would apply to a band that wanted to name themselves the queers, cunts, kikes, spics or n-----rs. This is a great day for America we can legally insult ourselves or others with a hate trademark.
from the decision;
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1293_1o13.pdf
[J]USTICE KENNEDY, joined by JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE SO-TOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN, agreed that 15 U.S.C. §1052
(a) constitutes viewpoint discrimination, concluding: (a) With few narrow exceptions, a fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that the government may not punish or suppress speech based on disapproval of the ideas or perspectives the speech conveys. See Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 828?829.
The test for viewpoint discrimination is whether?within the relevant subject category?the government has singled out a subset of messages for disfavor based on the views expressed. Here, the disparagement clause identifies the relevant subject as ?persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols,? §1052(a); and within that category, an applicant may register a positive or benign mark but not a derogatory one.
The law thus reflects the Government?s disapproval of a subset of messages it finds offensive, the essence of viewpoint discrimination.
The Government?s arguments in defense of the statute are unpersuasive. Pp. 2?5.(b)
Regardless of whether trademarks are commercial speech, the viewpoint based discrimination here necessarily invokes heightened scrutiny. See Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U. S. 552, 566.
To the extent trademarks qualify as commercial speech, they are an example of why that category does not serve as a blanket exemption from the First Amendment?s requirement of viewpoint neutrality.
In the realm of trademarks, the metaphorical marketplace of ideas becomes a tangible, powerful reality. To permit viewpoint discrimination in this context is to permit Government censorship. Pp. 5?7. ... [formatting added for readability]
(a) constitutes viewpoint discrimination, concluding: (a) With few narrow exceptions, a fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that the government may not punish or suppress speech based on disapproval of the ideas or perspectives the speech conveys. See Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 828?829.
The test for viewpoint discrimination is whether?within the relevant subject category?the government has singled out a subset of messages for disfavor based on the views expressed. Here, the disparagement clause identifies the relevant subject as ?persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols,? §1052(a); and within that category, an applicant may register a positive or benign mark but not a derogatory one.
The law thus reflects the Government?s disapproval of a subset of messages it finds offensive, the essence of viewpoint discrimination.
The Government?s arguments in defense of the statute are unpersuasive. Pp. 2?5.(b)
Regardless of whether trademarks are commercial speech, the viewpoint based discrimination here necessarily invokes heightened scrutiny. See Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U. S. 552, 566.
To the extent trademarks qualify as commercial speech, they are an example of why that category does not serve as a blanket exemption from the First Amendment?s requirement of viewpoint neutrality.
In the realm of trademarks, the metaphorical marketplace of ideas becomes a tangible, powerful reality. To permit viewpoint discrimination in this context is to permit Government censorship. Pp. 5?7. ... [formatting added for readability]
You can insult someone all day long if you want, just don't incite a riot. I can't believe you think it's a bad thing? Where are you from? You want someone saying you can't use speec to promote your camgirls anymore because it hurts the feelings of some religious nuts? I bet you'd be all up in arms over that. That's the difference between you/bladewire and others here. They don't call you alt left, snowflakes, or commie bastards when you spout off your ideas. As soon as another person does you insult the hell out of them, call them fake nics, and trolls LOL. Such a fucking hypocrite it makes me sick.........but I won't complain for you to be banned because that is your right. See that difference there?
Comment